Schlereth: It is time to change the name

“There’s no question, if you research the history of that name, it’s a pejorative term and it needs to change. I mean, you would never go into a conference of Native American people and walk up in front of them and refer to them as Redskins. It is a derogatory term, that’s its origins, and it is time to be a leader, from the standpoint of the NFL. High school(s) across America have changed their names. The NCAA has implemented policy to change those names. Why has the NFL shuffled its feet on this? I don’t know, but it’s time to change.”

Amen, Stink.

Doug is IAOFM’s resident newsman and spelling czar. Follow him on Twitter @IAOFM

Asking Dumervil to accept pay cut could be with an eye toward extending Miller next year; Dolphins re-sign Hartline; James Harrison, DeAngelo Hall may face same fate as Dumervil

Quibbles I Did not even read your reply past the first sentence.

You wanted numbers I gave my opine to which you found a something rebutting it.

I still do not believe dan is going to change the until he wants to. Or if he is forced to and I do not see that happening.

So consider this my last reply because all you want to do is quibble.

Dale Carniege once said.

"You never win an argument, even if you prove someone wrong, you still lose because you have made an enemy".

I only state my facts or opinions based on my life experiences. If someone does not like or understand them to bad. I lose no sleep about it.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-06-03 17:04:15

I was unaware that I was trying to make up Snyder's mind for him, but thanks for letting me know that if I was, this wouldn't be the way to do it.

So if I'm not trying to change Snyder's mind, then why am I arguing? Well, if you go allllllll the way back up to my original post, you'll see that RockyMtnThunder said "You know what changing the name would be??? A cash cow... that's what."

To which I responded: "Changing the name will not be a cash cow. It will probably cost more than it brings in."

To which you replied: "the actual cost of a change over is small."

To which I replied: "The name change would probably run from $10-20m."

To which you replied: "show me where that money is going to go."

To which I replied with a link to experts showing you where that money is going to go.

To which you replied: "I still do not think the costs are that high."

To which I replied: "You don't think the costs will be that high. Experts with much more knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the situation do. Forgive me if I trust the expert opinion over yours."

To which you replied: "Obliviously [sic] you've never ran a business. Nor are wealthy. Nor are/were most of the so called experts your quoting. Snyder does NOT care about the costs or the loss of profit... Again 20 mil, about the same money they lose if they sign the wrong HC."

To which I replied: "$20m might be the amount you lose if you sign the wrong coach, but I have yet to see Snyder go out and DELIBERATELY sign the wrong coach, which suggests to me that he's not particularly keen on losing $20m."

To which you replied: "He will spend the extra money WHEN and IF he wants to. Might even be waiting for enough heat that the NFL helps with some of the money. He did not get into the position of being able to buy one of the top 3 franchises by making bad decisions."

And that's exactly how we completed the cycle, from you saying that Dan Snyder didn't care about the money because it was chump change to you saying that Dan Snyder is a shrewd businessman and he's probably just waiting until he can change the name for less money, because shrewd businessmen don't pay more than they have to.

And then, once the cycle was completed, you ignored everything that came before and pretended that my goal all along was to try to change Snyder's mind or something, when obviously this whole time I've only been correcting people who have made claims that are objectively and demonstrably false.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-06-03 15:05:43

not sure where you think I was arguing, merely stating facts as I know them from past business experiences and some opinions.

I know one thing for sure you need to rename your log in to Quibbles because that is all you like to do..

one last time Danny will change the name IF and when HE wants to or is ordered to do so and not before.

Quiblling about it on a FOOTBALL forum is not going to make up his mind.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-06-03 00:30:21

So what is your argument? That $20m is nothing to Dan Snyder because he's a Richy Richy McRicherpants? Or that $20m is such a huge sum of money to Poor Frugal Miserly Dan Snyder that he's just dragging his feet so the league will kick in to cover part of the costs? Neither? Both in turns? Both simultaneously?

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-06-02 22:17:41

Snyder has done a lot of stupid things DELIBERATELY thinking he knew more about football than those wise GM's and HC's he had hired to do. Including signing players they did not want.

To top it off he hired Tanny, if that was not deliberate enough for you, not sure what would be.

I was in business for many years 45 plus, so I have a clue about a few things and with that knowledge Know that when the owner wants to do something he will and he will carefully weigh all of the options before he makes a decision.

As a Manager I had to justify to the owner when I wnated to buy things that were not in the budget..

BTW all of those signs you spoke about earlier, require maintenance, updating and replacement from time to time anyway so I suspect most of that is in the budget anyway.

He will spend the extra money WHEN and IF he wants to.

Might even be waiting for enough heat that the NFL helps with some of the money.

He did not get into the position of being able to buy one of the top 3 franchises by making bad decisions.

It did not stop him from making a bunch afterward, but typically billionaire owners believe they know more than anyone else.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-06-02 18:24:55

See, I would suspect that if you went to people who ran a business and said "hey, how'd you guys like it if I just wiped out 20% of your net profits this year?", most would be a little bit displeased at the prospect. But I've never owned a business, so what do I know?

$20m might be the amount you lose if you sign the wrong coach, but I have yet to see Snyder go out and DELIBERATELY sign the wrong coach, which suggests to me that he's not particularly keen on losing $20m. I mean, he's done it plenty on accident, but I don't think he's ever done it on purpose yet.

But you know what, I'll just defer to your wisdom. You're obviously not only an independently wealthy self-made billionaire with your own sports franchise, but you're also a latent telepath and are therefore uniquely suited to explain to us not only how you feel about money, but how Dan Snyder does, too.

Also, I know that it was a typo and you meant "obviously", but I did find it a little bit... apropos.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-06-02 17:05:28

Obliviously you've never ran a business. Nor are wealthy.

Nor are/were most of the so called experts your quoting.

Snyder does NOT care about the costs or the loss of profit.

While 20 mil sounds like a lot of money to a billionaire it is pocket money.

He will make the name change IF and when he decides to, he could give a rats rectum about public perception. He cares about making money and running his team.

Again 20 mil, about the same money they lose if they sign the wrong HC.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-06-02 16:04:30

You don't think the costs will be that high. Experts with much more knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the situation do. Forgive me if I trust the expert opinion over yours.

I'm not making anything out of this. I think there's absolutely no question Snyder should do it. I'm just saying, a big reason why he hasn't is because doing it would wipe out 20% of his annual profits. Or, if he'd rather spread the expenses out, then it'll wipe out 5% of his profits a year for four years. Or 2% for 10 years. Or maybe it'll only take out 12% of his profits. Or however much for however long. No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you carve out for tax deductions and delayed expenditures, $10-20m is an objectively huge sum of money, and shrewd businessmen are going to be reluctant to throw it around if they don't have to.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-06-02 14:05:50

Thanks for the info.

You still fail to understand that every dime spent is a business expense. And therefore deductible from state and federal taxes. Which cuts those "FIXED" costs dramatically.

Not sure of his tax bracket for the club but say 20% of the 109 mil is a lot of money. Cut that by say your high side of 20 mil and your actual cost is closer to 15--16 mil.

I still do not think the costs are that high.

As for the naming consultants you can bet they have been working on this for a while now. Also costs for this type of thing can be spread over several year period.

Not like he has to do all of this in one fiscal year. As I said in my original post the profits for merchandise is divided by all the teams. But again in your article it said each team makes about 5 mil each year.

You are making more out of this than you should.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-06-01 19:59:21

Hey, what do you know, I typed "how much would it cost to change the name of the Redskins" into google and this is the first thing that popped up: http://www.sportsonearth.com/a...

Quoting from the article now:The exact price of a nickname change is hard to estimate -- in part because the teams and schools that have switched monikers typically haven't shared their costs publicly; in part because unaffiliated sports branding and marketing experts don't have access to the proprietary team financial data needed to calculate a number. That said, it's possible to make a reasonable, educated guess. In 2010, Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael Jordan told Charlotte Observer writer Scott Fowler that it would cost him between $3 million and $10 million to change the team's little-loved nickname. (NBA insiders say Jordan's estimate is accurate). A source with knowledge of financial operations in professional football estimates that the cost for a "significant NFL team" might be as high as "$10 million to $20 million." Where does the money go? Think naming consultants. (Someone has to come up with replacement monikers, like "Warriors" and "Pigskins.") Think lawyers. (Someone has to vet those same names, a tedious affair; according to New York-based brand expert Allen Adamson, "for every ten names you think of, nine are going to be unavailable.") Think having to revamp every single thing -- from stadium signs to uniform patches to front office stationary to the pixels in "Madden NFL" -- featuring a team logo or nickname.

"There's so many points of touch that need to be changed," Adamson says. "People think it's only the name on the top of the stadium. But walk in. It's probably everywhere. In neon. Etched in stone. And you have to rip off the old name and put in a new name. That's a fixed cost, and it's not insubstantial."

Some have speculated that a revised name and logo could boost merchandise sales for Snyder's team -- first by transforming remaining old-school Redskins items into fly-off-the-shelves collectibles; next by introducing shiny new gear for fans to buy. That's entirely possible. Yet as a person familiar with the team's operations pointed out to the Washington Post, 31 NFL teams pool and equally split merchandising revenue, which means a new-look Washington wouldn't disproportionately benefit from an uptick. (Predictably, the Dallas Cowboys are the lone holdouts from the profit-sharing plan; according to a 2006 article in the Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Journal, the Redskins made about $5 million from NFL Properties in 1999, a number that likely has grown).

"People are going to buy new sweatshirts," Adamson says. "But I think when you factor in the cost of changing a name, it's probably a wash."

The Redskins are a significant NFL franchise. Last year, Forbes estimated that the team was worth $1.6 billion -- the third-highest valuation in the league -- and that the club turned a $109 million profit in 2011. As such, suppose a name change would actually cost Snyder as much as $20 million. That's nearly a fifth of an entire year's profits. Pretty substantial.

Hooray for the power of 30 seconds worth of research over baseless and uninformed speculation!

The article goes on to mention some of the signing bonuses and failed investments they've made in the past, but just because you screwed up on an investment before doesn't mean you're going to be eager to dump an extra $20m just for shits and giggles now.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-06-01 17:21:10

Last weekend, ESPNU broadcast the documentary "America's First Sport" which is about the history of lacrosse and its native origins (It can be seen here). In about 6 weeks, the 2014 World Lacrosse Championships will kick off in Denver and will include the Iroquois Nation as one of the participating teams making it the only international sporting event to recognize an indigineous people. This may be the best team the Iroquois has fielded led by the 2014 Tewaaraton Trophy winners Lyle and Miles Thompson who each broke the NCAA single season points record this season while Miles tied the goals record and brother Lyle tied the assists record (and cousin Ty is no slouch either). They play with amazing flair and creativity but also with tremendous precision. Everyone should check them out if they get the chance. (some highlight videos below)https://www.youtube.com/watch?...https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I took a few moments to read some of the comments - foolish me. The level of 'logic' on that piece was beyond abysmal. The more I read other threads, the more I appreciate our members.

There's an old story about how words have power. A Sant (Sanskrit for Saint, but the definition is different from the way the term is used in the West) was giving a lecture and talked about the power of words. One person rose to tell him that words in themselves have no power. The Sant replied, "You fool!" The man got up and stormed out.

By the time he'd gotten home, I wonder if he had realized that the Sant had explained the answer to his disagreement.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2014-05-31 09:37:31

Okay, I believe the best way to make some factual opinions would be, pardon the analogy, to walk a mile in their moccasins. So, without knowing anyone's heritage, I'm guessing there aren't any true indigenous peoples commenting here. What I've been doing over the years is to gain some knowledge of other peoples struggles and beliefs. I'll try not to overwhelm you folks with all the links; so to help gain a different perspective, here's a few links to some amazing pages I've come across and interact with often...https://www.facebook.com/pages/Indigen...http://www.indiancountrytodaym...http://www.ienearth.org/https://www.facebook.com/indig...https://www.facebook.com/Nativ... One last point...Life is tough enough as is is and much too short, is it that hard to work together on making it a better journey?

Posted by Chris Nigro on 2014-05-31 03:15:45

But how much is Snyder and the team spending on the PR campaign to keep the name, including creating and funding the Original Americans Foundation as well as hiring several prominent political and media consultants (Ari Fleisher, George Allen, Frank Luntz and Lanny Davis? Seems like an extended fight will end up costing just as much as it would to change the name immediately.

Posted by MattR on 2014-05-31 01:58:40

show me where that money is going to go.

they are not going to change everything, the name on the uniforms, the logo but the actual name of the corporation can remain the same. If it is even the Washington redskins. it is probably held under a LLC or sole ownership under Snyders name.

the change the letterhead and signage. nobody cares what the corporate name is it is not out there for everone to see IF it is the WR. not going to cost ten mil and whatever the costs are it is ALL deductible under federal and state law. so IF it was 10 mil the actual out of pocket cost is more like 6. they wast that much on a signing bonus.

then factor in the money he makes on new gear.

he is silly not to make the name change EXCPET for the millions of skins fans that love it.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 23:29:16

The name change would probably run from $10-20m. Just because Snyder *CAN* afford to toss around $10-20m for funsies doesn't mean he's going to be particularly eager to.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-05-30 22:20:35

That is the point.

If there is enough back lash that fans do not show up for games they do not renew season tickets because of this situation (being kind). That will be the only thing that will cause Synder to make a change.

His season ticket holders, his fan base like the name. That are the folks that he is listening to.

Everyone can bang the drum, sorry if that is offensive, till their arms call off he simply does not care.

I also believe that there is not enough momentum in his lifetime to convince him to do so.

Only an act of congress will make him change his mind and since almost every one in congress has tickets when they want them if they are not season ticket holders that is a FAT chance of happening.

What was the name of that one song bang the drum slowly.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 22:08:00

Those seats are very filled too. Who is the only team in the NFL to have a longer, active, sell out streak than our beloved Broncos? Yep...The Potato Heads.

Posted by WhoShotBobbyHumphrey on 2014-05-30 19:58:49

would that be the owner or players or both?

suppose the Potato heads are on the field

how many with a few beers int hem would be going to the head or feel the need each time the announcer yelled the heads up by 14.

or give us some head by the cheerleaders..

the humor would be endless.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 19:22:18

merchandising revenue is split by 32.

but what is sold inside there own facility that does not have the NFL merchandising approval/license is all his profit.

it drives fans to his stadium stores and I suspect what ever they have at tehir "dove valley" office.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 19:16:08

what are the costs involved, stationary and signage, all of which are deductible in corporate income taxes. they can keep all the legal corporate LLC or ownership the same.

the actual cost of a change over is small.

Considering they will probably change the jerseys a bit here and there in the near future anyway.

every year the caps change and the logos are painted on the helmets each year anyway.

they can keep the same colors, as not to cause a problem with any gangs that may use them.

the amount of money that it take to name change the logo is dust to a billionaire.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 19:13:20

plus the after market and collectible stuff will go thru the roof.

I've been saying for years change the name and watch the cash registers go crazy. IIRC they have the second biggest fan base in the NFL.

But Dan does not appear to be motivated by money.

as long as the seats are filled he sees zero reason to make the change.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2014-05-30 19:02:35

I live near a big Tribal Community and I see a lot of Redskins logos on the rez. But like blacks using the n-word amongst themselves it is not the same thing as using it across racial divides. My hispanic friends have no issue when I refer to myself as a gringo, and sometimes refer to themselves as wetbacks, but we would never call each other by those names, because then it would be offensive.

Posted by iamafreeman on 2014-05-30 18:58:18

They should be called the Potato Heads anyway - that's about how smart they are.

Posted by billyricky on 2014-05-30 17:40:15

Would everyone be happy if we allowed Washington to keep the name on the condition that they change their mascot to a potato?I didn't think so.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2014-05-30 16:20:24

The wording of the question was particularly absurd. Good polls offer two distinct choices with no overlap. The survey in question asked "do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?", which provides two non-distinct choices. It's possible for me to believe the name is offensive and still not be bothered by it. The wording of the question would guarantee the poll would underestimate the true percentages, because a certain portion of the population that finds it offensive would answer that they were not bothered (while nobody in the population that finds it inoffensive would likewise respond that they were bothered).

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-05-30 15:24:04

There certainly is grey area... "Chiefs", "Braves", "Indians", "Seminoles" etc. likely depends more on HOW these symbols are projected than the name itself. E.g., the more you make the mascot a charicacture or negative image (e.g., big goofy buckteeth, etc.), the more likely it will be opposed. Numerous of these teams have had dialogues and made modifications to these depictions in consultation with Tribal groups, which is the correct way to handle it. Certainly someone can always be pissed off, but if there is good faith, responsiveness to complaints, and ongoing dialogue, most reasonable people will likely not get too upset.

However, in regards to the "Redskins", that is opposed by virtually every single intertribal organization (National Congress of American Indians, etc.), numerous Tribal governments, etc. and is a rare case where there is a pretty clear negative connotation that is commonly associated with the term itself, regardless of any associated imagery. While only 10% of Native folks from some survey may be actively offended by the name (and I actually doubt that survey asked the question in a non-biased way), that easily could be a similar issue to my assumption that 99% of white folks probably don't get that worked up about being called a "cracker" or "honky"... that doesn't imply in anyway that calling a team the "Crackers" or "Honkies" is in anyway a good idea.

Posted by cjfarls on 2014-05-30 15:22:49

Changing the name will not be a cash cow. It will probably cost more than it brings in. That's probably the real reason why Snyder is dragging his feet on it.

Posted by Kibbles on 2014-05-30 15:19:07

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the various polls done. I think the two issues are for me when it comes to polls are (1) that allowing people to self identify as Native American groups groups people who are 1/16 or 1/32 native and have no connection to their heritage with those who are predominantly of native descent and (2) how big does the offended minority have to be before it is significant enough that the name has to change. If I did something that offended 1/10 of my friends and it required minimal effort on my part to change, I think I would make the effort.

An interesting note from that Wikipedia page is that recent polls have shown that almost 2/3 recognize that Dan Snyder meets with Native Americans leaders he should not call them "Redskins" and even a majority of those who support the team name say that it should not be used to refer to individual Native Americans. I think those are the more significant numbers and are probably a good indicator that the name change is going to happen in the relatively near future.

Posted by MattR on 2014-05-30 13:36:53

"There was also a poll on CBS a year ago of Native Americans. Ninety percent of Native Americans across the country don’t find the name Redskins offensive." Is this true? I remember when I was in Junior high and I found out my high school was going to change the name of the school from the Redskins, to the Reds, I was really disappointed. I thought the tradition of it was cool and never thought twice about it until, I was told it offended people. Afterwards, I figured the change was just, if a group of Native Americans were offended by it enough to make a movement for the change. I think everyone can agree if something such as the name of a team brings such negative feelings toward a large group of people, than it should be changed, but how large is that group of offended Native Americans nationally? I wonder if Native Americans get offended when the see white folks dressed up with feathers and arrows at Chiefs games? Should the Chiefs change their mascot as well?

Posted by WhoShotBobbyHumphrey on 2014-05-30 12:11:45

He makes a great point about the rest of the sports world changing on this previously, with the NFL being one of the last holdout.When this issue of offensive Native American names/mascots rose to prominence in the 1990s, much of the most offensive stuff was modified in negotiation with the Tribes, or simply replaced. The NFL instead sat on its hands... I don't have a lot of sympathy for them at this point... its time to change, and its time to change now.

Posted by cjfarls on 2014-05-30 11:09:37

I'm thinking the people who think redskin is OK are the sort of people who WOULD go into a conference and say that

Then complain about political correctness gone mad

Posted by Mike Birtwistle on 2014-05-30 11:01:03

Why wouldn't he go into a conference of Native Americans and call them Redskins? Doesn't he know that the term honors them?

Posted by AldenBrown on 2014-05-30 10:58:04

EXACTLY! I wonder though, how does the merchandise money get split? Maybe Dan Snyder is trying to get the league to give him a better cut of the revenue if they redo the name.

Posted by Steve Stearns on 2014-05-30 10:56:14

You know what changing the name would be??? A cash cow... that's what. New logo, jerseys, merchandise. Yes it would cost to change all that but everyone would be buying the new gear that's a Washington Football team fan.